Why Collision v. Samsung Is Actually a Win for Patent Owners

Authored by Babak Akhlaghi on May 31, 2026.  The conventional reading of the Collision v. Samsung decision misses the most significant part.

Yes, on May 17, 2026, Judge Gilstrap denied Collision Communications’ request for a permanent injunction against Samsung. Yes, Samsung can continue selling products that a jury found willfully infringed Collision’s wireless communication patents—products that generated a $445.5 millions verdict back in October 2025.

But there’s a different way to read this outcome.

Buried in that injunction denial is something far more significant: Judge Gilstrap expressly acknowledged that a non-practicing entity *may* be entitled to an injunction if it can satisfy the four-factor test established by eBay v. MercExchange.

Why This Is Actually Groundbreaking

Here’s what you need to understand about the post-eBay landscape.

Since the Supreme Court’s 2006 eBay decision eliminated the presumption of injunctive relief in patent cases, Federal Circuit precedent has consistently suggested that monetary damages are adequate compensation for patent infringement, especially for non-practicing entities. The implicit message from years of case law: if you’re not making products, money is enough. You don’t need to stop the infringer.

That framework has fundamentally weakened patent owners’ negotiating leverage for nearly two decades. Why license a patent when you know the worst outcome is paying damages years later after protracted litigation?

Collision v. Samsung challenges that assumption.

Judge Gilstrap didn’t say NPEs can’t get injunctions. He said Collision didn’t satisfy the eBay test *in this specific case*. That’s a critical distinction.

By explicitly recognizing that NPEs may be entitled to injunctions if they meet the four-factor test, the decision opens a door that Federal Circuit jurisprudence had appeared to close.

The Four-Factor Test: What It Actually Means

Let me explain why Judge Gilstrap’s language matters so much.

The eBay test requires patent owners to prove four elements: (1) irreparable injury, (2) inadequacy of monetary damages, (3) favorable balance of hardships, and (4) that public interest favors an injunction.

For years, Federal Circuit cases have treated this test as effectively insurmountable for NPEs. The reasoning went like this: if you’re in the licensing business, money damages are by definition adequate. You can calculate a royalty. Problem solved. No injunction needed.

Judge Gilstrap rejected that categorical approach.

By acknowledging that an NPE *may* be entitled to an injunction upon satisfying the four factors, he’s saying this is a fact-specific inquiry, not a categorical bar. That’s huge.

Yes, Collision didn’t get its injunction. But the reasoning matters. The court didn’t say “you’re an NPE, so you can never get an injunction.” It said “you didn’t prove favorable balance of hardship and public interest, elements (3) and (4), of the eBay test.

Why This Reopens Negotiating Leverage

Here’s what changes with Judge Gilstrap’s framing.

For the past two decades, accused infringers could credibly argue that NPEs would never get injunctions. That assumption shaped every licensing negotiation. Why pay a reasonable royalty upfront when you can infringe with confidence that the worst outcome is a delayed payment?

Collision v. Samsung undermines that calculus.

If NPEs *can* get injunctions by properly proving the four eBay factors, then accused infringers face genuine uncertainty. They can’t simply dismiss the threat. They have to evaluate whether the patent owner might actually satisfy irreparable harm, inadequacy of monetary relief, balance of hardships, and public interest.

That uncertainty restores negotiating leverage. Even a small probability of an injunction changes the risk calculus significantly. A 10% chance of a sales ban is worth far more than a 100% chance of paying damages three years later.

What This Means for Patent Owners Going Forward

The strategic implications are significant.

Patent owners now have a roadmap. Judge Gilstrap’s decision doesn’t say injunctions are impossible for NPEs. It says Collision didn’t adequately prove the four factors. That’s an invitation to do better next time.

The key is building your injunction case from day one, not as an afterthought.

Here’s what patent owners should focus on:

Document irreparable harm early. Don’t wait until trial to think about how you’ll prove irreparable injury. If you’re losing market opportunities, document them. If infringement is damaging your licensing business, show how. If you’re suffering reputational harm or market confusion, build that record. The more concrete evidence you have, the harder it is for courts to say monetary damages are adequate.

Frame the balance of hardships correctly. Courts often focus on the harm to the accused infringer and the public if an injunction issues. But there’s a flip side: what’s the harm to innovation and patent rights if infringers can simply ignore patents and pay damages years later? Patent owners need to articulate why the balance of hardships favors exclusion, not compulsory licensing.

Address public interest proactively. The government’s statement in Collision signals that public interest can support injunctions even for NPEs. Patent owners should explain how injunctive relief serves innovation incentives, promotes licensing negotiations, and reinforces property rights. Don’t cede the public interest argument to accused infringers.

The Government’s Role Matters

Don’t overlook what happened with the DOJ and USPTO statement.

The DOJ and USPTO filed a joint statement supporting the possibility of injunctions for NPEs. They didn’t guarantee Collision would win, but they explicitly rejected the categorical approach that had dominated Federal Circuit thinking.

That’s a signal about where policy is headed.

For years, the narrative around NPEs has been overwhelmingly negative, “patent trolls” abusing the system, extracting nuisance settlements, holding up innovation. The government’s intervention in Collision suggests a more nuanced view: yes, there are abuses, but legitimate patent owners deserve meaningful remedies, including injunctions when warranted.

Why This Strengthens the Patent System

Some may worry that easier access to injunctions will chill innovation or enable holdup.

I think that misses the bigger picture.

The fundamental bargain of the patent system is simple: you disclose your invention to the public, and in exchange, you get the right to exclude others from using it for a limited time. The right to exclude is the core of patent property rights.

When courts effectively eliminate that exclusion right for entire categories of patent owners, they’re rewriting the deal. They’re saying “you get disclosure and maybe some money, but you don’t really own anything.”

That undermines the patent system’s legitimacy.

Collision v. Samsung moves us back toward a system where exclusion rights are real, not just theoretical. Where patent owners have meaningful leverage, not just litigation lottery tickets. Where accused infringers have genuine incentives to negotiate licenses rather than infringe and delay.

How Patent Owners Should Respond

If you’re a patent owner, Collision v. Samsung gives you a playbook.

Build your injunction case from the start. Don’t treat injunctive relief as an afterthought. From the moment you identify potential infringement, start documenting irreparable harm. Show how monetary damages can’t adequately compensate you. Build evidence that the balance of hardships and public interest favor exclusion.

Use the decision as leverage in negotiations. When you approach potential licensees, you can now point to Collision as evidence that NPEs can get injunctions if they prove their case. That’s not a guarantee, but it changes the risk calculation. Accused infringers can’t dismiss the threat as easily as they could before.

Choose your forum strategically. Judge Gilstrap’s willingness to acknowledge that NPEs may obtain injunctions suggests the Eastern District of Texas remains open to these arguments. Other districts may be less receptive. Forum selection matters more than ever, and Collision provides data about where you’re more likely to get a fair hearing on injunctive relief.

The Licensing Dynamic Shifts

Here’s what I expect to see in licensing negotiations going forward.

Accused infringers can no longer assume that NPEs will never get injunctions. That assumption shaped royalty rates for years the patent owner had no real leverage, so rates compressed toward nuisance settlement values or delayed damages.

Collision changes that calculation.

Even if injunctions remain rare, the mere possibility shifts the expected value of litigation. A 10-20% probability of an injunction is enough to make accused infringers more willing to negotiate reasonable licenses upfront rather than roll the dice in court.

Where Patent Law Goes from Here

I expect other courts to follow Judge Gilstrap’s approach.

Once a district court judge articulates that NPEs may obtain injunctions under eBay, it becomes harder for other judges to maintain the categorical “monetary damages are always adequate for NPEs” position. The Collision decision provides precedent and reasoning that patent owners can cite in future cases.

We may also see the Federal Circuit address this more directly. If Collision or a similar case reaches the appellate level with strong facts supporting an NPE injunction, the Circuit could clarify that the four-factor test is genuinely fact-specific, not a categorical bar.

That would be a watershed moment.

It would restore meaningful exclusion rights to patent owners across the board. It would incentivize good-faith licensing negotiations. It would make patent portfolios more valuable and predictable.

And critically, it would reaffirm that patent rights are actual property rights, not just entitlements to delayed compensation.

The Real Win in Collision v. Samsung

Here’s what most people are missing.

Collision didn’t get its injunction. Samsung keeps selling the infringing products. From that narrow perspective, it looks like a loss.

But the legal precedent is a win.

Judge Gilstrap acknowledged that NPEs may obtain injunctions if they satisfy eBay’s four factors. That’s a direct rejection of the categorical approach that Federal Circuit cases had implied. It’s an invitation for patent owners to build better injunction cases.

The government supported the possibility of NPE injunctions. The court engaged seriously with the four-factor analysis rather than dismissing the request out of hand.

This is how legal doctrine shifts.

It doesn’t happen overnight. It happens through decisions like this that crack open the door, that acknowledge possibilities that prior precedent seemed to foreclose, that give future litigants a roadmap for how to succeed.

Patent owners now know what they need to prove. They know courts are willing to consider NPE injunctions on the merits. They know the government supports that possibility.

That’s leverage. That’s progress. That’s a win even if this particular plaintiff didn’t get its injunction this time.